City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp. (12/23/03 IndSCt)
Here are some quotes on the case from this release from U.S. Newswire:
In an important legal victory against the gun industry, the Indiana Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that the city of Gary may proceed with its lawsuit against gun manufacturers and sellers. The court reversed a lower court ruling dismissing the city's claims and rejected virtually every argument made by the industry against the suit.The background and history of the case is available here, on the Brady Center's anti-gun violence site. Some quotes:This ruling comes as Congress is considering legislation to ban civil suits by gun violence victims and cities and immunize negligent gun sellers. Currently, 44 states allow suits by victims or cities against negligent gun sellers. The federal immunity bill would override all of these states' laws. Attorneys with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence represent Gary, Ind., in this case. * * *
The Gary suit charges that the industry has designed, marketed and distributed firearms in ways that ensure the widespread accessibility of handguns to prohibited purchasers, including children and criminals. It asserts nuisance, negligence and product liability theories of recovery against the industry, seeking damages for the millions of dollars in costs incurred by the city in combating illegal guns.
The Indiana Supreme Court decision clears the way for the Gary suit to proceed to pretrial discovery and trial.
Gary then appealed the case to the Indiana Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court reversed the dismissal against certain gun dealers, allowing the case against those dealers to proceed. In the same decision, the court split 2-1 on whether to allow Gary’s case against gun manufacturers, distributors and other dealers to go forward. In a lengthy, stinging dissent, Judge Patricia A. Riley held that Gary’s entire case should proceed, stating, “The majority cannot reasonably contend that [the gun industry’s alleged] ‘willful, deliberate, reckless, and negligent’ distribution of firearms is legislatively authorized....A city’s foremost concern is the health and welfare of its citizens. Appellees [the gun industry] make and sell a product that is demonstrably devastating to that health and welfare.” City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, 2002 WL 31100648 (Sept. 20, 2002, Ind. App.).[Update 12/24/03] Here is today's story in the Indianapolis Star. Some quotes:Gary appealed the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. On January 23, 2003, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal as to whether Gary's suit against the gun manufacturers can go forward. The decision vacates the appellate decision which found for defendant gun manufacturers. Oral argument on the appeal was held on February 27, 2003 [listen here], at which the Legal Action Project argued on behalf of the city.
The 5-0 ruling clears the way for a trial in Lake Superior Court unless Congress votes to ban lawsuits against the gun industry by municipalities and the victims of gun violence. Gary is among 33 municipalities that have sued the industry. * * *The story also reports that: "After Gary filed suit, the Indiana General Assembly acted in its 2000 session to ban lawsuits by other municipalities in the state." This story from the Chicago Tribune states:Indiana's Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Theodore Boehm, became the second state top court to uphold a municipality's right to sue gun manufacturers to recover taxpayer money spent as a result of gun-related violence. Ohio, in June 2002, became the first to allow such lawsuits.
Indiana passed a law in 2000 barring such lawsuits, but it exempted Gary. The U.S. House in April passed a bill to extend a ban on such suits nationwide, and President Bush has said he would sign it. Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.Neither House Bill 1064 nor 1081 from 2000, which took separate approaches toward barring such lawsuits, passed out of first house committee. Although I don't doubt that the 2000 General Assembly passed such a law, I am unable to locate it (and I have been working with legislation for about 100 years!). If anyone can direct me to the 2000 law referenced in the stories, I'd appreciate it.
[Updated 12/26/03] Well, I finally found "the 2000 law" -- it is a 2001 law -- in the Indiana Code at IC 34-12-3. Its source is PL 19-2001; the 2001 Enrolled Act is HEA 1043. The enrolled act digest reads:
Legal actions involving firearms. Prohibits the state or a municipal corporation, including a county, municipality, township, school corporation, or any other separate local governmental entity that may sue and be sued, from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or seller for: (1) recovery of damages resulting from, or injunctive relief or abatement of a nuisance relating to, the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm; or (2) recovery of damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm by a third party.As for "exempting Gary from the ban," HEA 1043 contains a non-codified section (i.e. you won't find it in the Indiana Code) that reads:
SECTION 2. [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE] IC 34-12-3, asThe effective date of HEA 1043 was April 18, 2001; the Gary lawsuit was filed on August 27, 1999, according to information found here. The history of the bill, including the authors and sponsors, may be found here. Posted by Marcia Oddi at December 23, 2003 07:22 PM
added by this act, applies only to actions filed after the effective date of this act.